Are you learning Koine Greek, the Greek of the New Testament and most other post-classical Greek texts? Whatever your level, use this forum to discuss all things Koine, Biblical or otherwise, including grammar, textbook talk, difficult passages, and more.

I been told that the meaning of the word telos (τελοσ) in Rom. 10.4 includes the meaning of result, outcome or conclusion rather then the meaning end. Most of the translations are translating this word telos as the end, only the Amplifed Bible Translation is explaining this word as "the limit at which it ceases to be, for the Law leads up to Him Who is the fulfillment of its types, and in Him the purpose which it was designed to accomplish is fulfilled. That is, the purpose of the Law is fulfilled in Him".Any of You know which meaning of the word telos in Rom. 10.4 is more correct one, or know any sources to find that information?

For those who encounter the Living God through Jesus Christ our Savior, the law has ended or ceases to be.

I am not sure that there is much of a difference between the two.

It would seem to me that the end (τελος) of the law was righteousness,but because of the weakness of the flesh it could not deliver. But now Christ is the end (goal) of the law εἰς δικαιοσυνη ( 2 Cor 5:21). Christ delivers for us what the law could not, and by this means both fulfils and brings it to its proper fruition.

Wright provides extensive argument for the understanding of τέλος as 'goal,' 'completion,' rather than 'abrogation,' 'termination.' He shows how it reflects Paul's argument throughout Romans. Moo on the other hand prefers to understand the phrase εἰς δικαιοσυνην as stating the purpose of the first clause rather than qualifying νομου.

Romans 10:4 - τέλος γὰρ νόμου Χριστὸς εἰς δικαιοσύνην παντὶ τῷ πιστεύοντι.For Christ is the end of the law unto righteousness for all who believe.

Don't see why τέλος should be understood as anything other than "culmination, end, finishing". Meaning, according to Paul, when Jesus did what he did, that was the end and fulfillment of the law (read: תורה Torah) for anyone who believes in him. This is rather consistent with most of Paul's writings, though he does seem to show some inconsistency in the book of Acts, where he claims to be Torah observant when in Jerusalem.

Matt ch5 explains that the righteous teachings of YHVH will not disappear until heaven and earth disappear, or the stars disappear, not one stroke or one yud will disappear from the law, and whoever teaches so will be called the least in the kingdom, but whoever teach my Father's commandment will be called the greatest in heaven.

Romans 10:4 should read " For the goal at which the Torah ( Law is a very poor translation also) aims is the Messiah, who offers righteousness to everyone who trusts. For Moshe writes about the righteousness grounded in the Torah that "the person who does these things will attain life through them" Lev 18:5.

The topic is about trust not doing away with YWVH righteous commandments for all people to live a righteous life. Without Torah, His instructions, how do you know you are living life the way He wants you too.

Salvation has always been through your trust in Elohyim, take Avraham. Torah was to show you that you are unrighteous in G-ds eyes, He is a Holy G-d and does not associate Himself with sin, or people who continue to live in sin, or refuse to live a life in a righteous way, and think I believe in Jesus that means I am saved no matter what, wrong, it`s about G-d not Jesus. What does G-d require?. Righteousness

I understand, but we have to make a choice, do we understand Paul to mean Torah is abolished. Even when Jesus said it was not, Matt ch 5. And paul states in other areas that " Is the Law then abolished?, Heaven forbid", it is established. Paul is ether lying or is his teaching hard to understand as Peter explained," to those not schooled in the Torah, Pauls teachings are hard to understand", why would Peter have to explain that to Jews as they were his audience?. What is it that is so bad about G-ds righteous teachings that the church feels it is not for them. 2/3 of the New testament is quotations from the Tanak ( Old Testament), Jesus never read the New Testament, it had not been written. He studied and taught from The Tanak. There are over 1,000 commandments in the New Testament, does that mean the church does not need to apply them to there lives, just a thought?.

Yochy wrote:I understand, but we have to make a choice, do we understand Paul to mean Torah is abolished. Even when Jesus said it was not, Matt ch 5. And paul states in other areas that " Is the Law then abolished?.

Paul is unlikely to have had a copy of Matthew to hand and that gospel may well not have been written when Paul was writing Romans. While what Paul himself wrote elsewhere carries more weight it would be normal for the views of a writer like Paul to evolve over time. My Greek is not good enough yet to determine whether Paul is actually saying the Torah is abolished but surely but we surely can't exclude that possibility if it is what the Greek seems to say.

and Paul's consistent insistence that Christians do NOT need to keep the Law, is to say that Matthew was indeed written later, and rather than quoting the actual words of Jesus, Matthew reshapes them to form an anti-Pauline polemic. I reject this solution all together, but I admit that I don't have a really good answer to resolve this contradiction. I know that Jesus himself revealed the anti-Law gospel to Paul,

and I know that Matthew 5:19 cannot possibly apply to Christians today. Les Feldick probably has the best solution when he says that the teachings of Jesus apply to his Jewish followers during his lifetime, whereas the teachings of Paul apply to all people after the resurrection .

My Greek is not good enough yet to determine whether Paul is actually saying the Torah is abolished...

Yochy wrote:Romans 10:4 should read " For the goal at which the Torah ( Law is a very poor translation also) aims is the Messiah, who offers righteousness to everyone who trusts.

David wrote:Paul(maybe) wrote:Christ is the end of the law in respect of justice to all those trusting him.

Markos writes:Let me tell you something: As far as this business with getting-right-with-God goes, it is Christ who fulfills the law, and therefore removes the need for the law to anyone who puts their trust into Him.

There are (at least) two ways to figure out what a Greek text means. 1. apply the rules of Greek grammar. 2. Allow the context to determine what the Greek means.

The rules of Greek grammar, as I understand them, would say that τέλος, because it lacks the article, is more likely to be the predicate than the subject. The rules of Greek grammar, as I understand them, would say that this is NOT a convertible proposition. The rules of Greek grammar, as I understand them, would say that Yochy's rendering is more or less wrong.

But if I have to choose between applying the rules of Greek grammar and allowing the context to determine meaning, I would go with context 10 out of 10 times. Yochy is convinced that Christians need to continue to observe the Torah. This is his context. This is his rule of faith (which is almost exactly the opposite of the traditional Lutheran rule of faith) and if he is correct, his rendering makes sense.